An Unhappy Conversation Continues

Friction between judiciary and executive could be healthy for a democracy. Over time, one has seemed more assertive than the other. But there are lines to be minded

- KALEESWARAM RAJ

In a democracy, there is nothing unusual about a fissure between the executive and the judiciary. There could even be a healthy discourse between the two branches. Yet, the criticism of the Supreme Court's activist posture in the Tamil Nadu governor's case has attained a larger dimension.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar chose to remind the country about Montesquieu's principle of the separation of powers. To drive home his point, he criticised not only the judgement, but also Article 142 of the Constitution, which enables the court to pass orders 'for doing complete justice'. In exercise of the power, the court fixed a time limit for presidential and gubernatorial actions on bills passed by state legislatures. Being dissatisfied with this gesture, the vice president feels that the provision resembles a 'missile' available with the Supreme Court that could be used against 'democratic forces'.

There is an inherent irony in labelling the 'forces' that torpedo the decisions of people's representatives at states as 'democratic'. The same irony is perpetuated when the vice president, by implication, endorses the arbitrary action or inaction of a governor. Equally fallacious is his dissatisfaction about the Supreme Court not placing the case before a Constitution bench by invoking Article 145(3).

Article 142 is an indispensable device that equips the Supreme Court to determine the impact of adjudication on the ground, in concrete terms. The court cannot resolve disputes in a vacuum, or in purely theoretical or propositional terms.